When Recruiting Feels Like Being Ghosted: an open letter from a CHRO to CEOs, managers, hiring teams, HR, recruiters and staffing partners
Imagine the last time someone you've started to care about slowly disappeared: silence after a flurry of texts, the sudden stop after plans were made, the hollow confusion of not knowing what happened. For many people that experience is modern dating. For thousands of job seekers every week, that same experience is being repeated in our hiring processes.
As a CHRO, I’m writing to you because this is not an anecdote — it’s a pattern. Recruiting today can crush a candidate’s hope, identity, and financial stability in exactly the same ways breakups do: it creates attachment, then uncertainty, then disenfranchised grief when there is no explanation. That is avoidable. It is fixable. And if we want strong teams, a trustworthy employer brand, and real diversity and inclusion, we have to change how we treat people when they are most vulnerable.
Why the comparison to dating matters (and the psychology behind it)
When someone applies for a job they are not just submitting a CV — they are investing emotional energy, identity, and future plans. Psychologically:
Hope and attachment. Candidates imagine how the job will change their life. That positive anticipation strengthens their attachment to the role and to you as a potential employer.
Uncertainty is painful. Humans tolerate uncertainty poorly. Ambiguity about “where I stand” triggers stress, rumination, and prolonged anxiety.
Loss without closure causes complicated grief. When you don’t explain why a candidate didn’t move forward, they can’t make sense of the loss; they may internalize it as a reflection of self-worth.
Power imbalances magnify harm. Employers hold enormous power over livelihoods; using that power carelessly has outsized consequences.
This is why ghosting, long silences, robotic responses, and “we’ll keep your resume on file” notes feel so brutal — they are not only disrespectful, they are psychologically damaging.
How modern recruiting normalized dehumanization
Post-COVID hiring shifted many things in useful ways (remote work, larger talent pools), but it also accelerated transactional, volume-driven practices:
Heavy reliance on ATS and templated communication that prioritize throughput over human connection.
Shrinking recruiter-to-role ratios (fewer humans doing more work), and increased pressure to move quickly.
“Pipeline thinking” that treats candidates as inventory rather than people.
A culture that equates non-response with efficiency, or “no news is fine” — when it’s not.
None of those pressures excuse the outcome. They explain why we tolerate broken practices — not why we should.
The human and business costs
This is not purely an ethical argument. The fallout shows up in measurable ways:
Employer brand deterioration: word-of-mouth and Glassdoor reviews reflect how you treat people.
Talent loss: strong candidates stop applying when they see disrespectful processes.
Lower diversity: people from marginalized groups are disproportionately harmed by opaque processes.
Lower trust internally: hiring teams who treat candidates poorly create a culture reflected in retention and engagement.
We weaken our talent engine when we treat people like data points.
Healthy separation vs. dysfunctional rejection — what to aim for
Think about how you’d want a respectful breakup to go. Translate that to recruiting:
Healthy separation includes:
Timely, clear communication.
A concise reason or rubric-aligned feedback (not personal attacks).
Appreciation for effort and time.
Clear next steps (e.g., whether to reapply and when).
An offer of a brief feedback call if appropriate.
Dysfunctional separation looks like:
Ghosting or indefinite silence.
Robotic “we’ll keep your profile on file.”
Sudden rescinds with no explanation.
Power-play behaviors (e.g., ghosting to avoid awkwardness).
We should be building processes that produce the former, not the latter.
Concrete changes every hiring organization can make —starting this week
You don’t need a six-month overhaul to be more humane. Here are practical policies and tiny rituals that scale:
Set a communication SLA. Commit to initial response within X days and post-interview update within Y days. Make the SLA public on the job description.
Create a “no-ghost” rule. If a candidate reaches a milestone (phone screen, interview, finalist), they get a human response — even a short one — within the SLA.
Use rubrics and document decisions. For every interview, capture the score, the gap, and a concise reason for the decision. That makes feedback possible and defensible.
Share concise feedback. For finalists and mid-stage candidates, offer 1–3 specific areas (skills, experience, cultural fit) that explain the decision. Keep it brief, factual, and kind.
Standardize respectful rejection templates (but personalize!). A templated backbone + one or two tailored sentences is better than nothing.
Offer a short closure call for finalists. This can be a five-minute call — it’s high-touch, low-effort, and memorable.
Train interviewers on empathy and bias. Teach people to separate “fit” from “like” and to communicate results without judgment.
Publish timelines and be transparent about pauses. If hiring freezes or changes happen, tell candidates — “we paused for budget reasons; we’ll update by [date].”
Measure candidate experience. Track Candidate NPS, percent of candidates receiving feedback, and time-to-communication. Make it a leadership metric.
Designate a candidate-owner. Someone responsible for the candidate experience across the process, even after an offer is accepted or declined.
Short scripts you can borrow now
Use these when time is limited — they’re short, human, and actionable.
Quick rejection (after interview):
Subject: Update on [Role] — thank you
Hi [Name], thank you for speaking with us about [role]. We appreciated your time. We’ve decided to move forward with another candidate whose experience more closely matches [specific gap]. If you’d like a 10-minute call with the interviewer for feedback, I can arrange it. We genuinely wish you well. — [Recruiter/Manager]We’re pausing the role:
Subject: Update: [Role] is paused
Hi [Name], thank you for your interest in [Role]. We wanted to be transparent: we’re pausing hiring for this role due to [budget/reorg]. We’ll update you by [date]. If anything changes sooner, we’ll reach out. — [Recruiter/CHRO]Finalist closure call offer:
Subject: Thank you — offer of feedback
Hi [Name], thank you again for interviewing. If you’d like 10 minutes of feedback from the hiring lead, reply and we’ll schedule. We’d be glad to help. — [Name]
Make humane recruitment a business mandate
This requires leadership. CEOs and executives: if you care about reputation, inclusion, and long-term growth, your organizations must adopt recruitment practices that preserve dignity. Make candidate experience a leadership KPI. Fund interviewer training. Measure and reward empathy.
Recruiters and staffing agencies: your role is partly advocacy. Push clients for timelines, clarity, and feedback. Remind them that candidates represent future customers, partners, and brand ambassadors.
Managers and interviewers: prepare. Read the resume before the call. Decide in advance what “success” looks like for the role. Bring a rubric. It’s not extra work — it’s core to being a responsible leader.
A small manifesto: the Respectful Recruitment Pledge
Here’s a short pledge I ask every hiring leader I work with to sign in spirit:
We will communicate clearly and within a reasonable time.
We will provide concise, factual feedback to finalists and mid-stage candidates.
We will never ghost a candidate at a milestone without an update.
We will treat candidates with the same empathy we’d expect for our employees.
Pledges are meaningful only with measurement. Pick one metric (e.g., % of interviewed candidates receiving feedback) and improve it quarter over quarter.
Closing — because this matters
Hiring is a moment of power. It’s where we shape lives, careers, and communities. When we are callous or silent, we don’t only damage candidates — we damage our culture and our ability to attract the talent we need.
You can run efficient, high-quality hiring processes and still be humane. In fact, you must. Respectful recruitment is not just the right thing to do — it’s the smart thing to do.
Consultant / Author
Cassie Catrice, MHRIR SPHR